Debate: Human life as beginning at conception

From Debatepedia

Main Question: Does Human Life Begin At Conception?

Background and Context

The whole idea of human life beginning at conception is a polarizing issue that has existed for years. Various reasons this debate exists is because of abortion debates worldwide, must specifically in the United States. Contrary to popular liberal "extremist" thought there are numerous scientific facts that allow for debate for life beginning at conception.

Mainly the debated ideal is (paraphrase) saying whether a fertilzed egg that is currently beginning the processes of life has the status of living or dead.

Reasons for this conflict between the giving of the biological status of "living" is mainly because of abortion. Why it affects the debate abortion (see Debate: Abortion) so much is because if something is "aborted", another term for killing, and it is granted the term of "having life/living" the abortion would be a criminal and despised offense similar to murder, homicide, etc.

Now the debate whether life begins at conception is subject to many different viewpoints ranging from objective to subjective and a myriad of combinations of both. Viewpoints and opinino of this issue are largely affected by the: religion, ethnic origin, scientific exposure, logic capability, and the moral/ethic boundaries of the given person.

This page is divided not by pro/con, but by the sides of this polarizing issue. Left side is supporting life at conception, right side is against life at conception. This is done to maximize your reading comprehension and fluidity while minimizing searching and problems.

Side for "Life at Conception" (YES)

Side against "Life at Conception" (NO)

If science gives bacteria "living status", shouldn't at least the same status apply to a(n) embryo/fetus?

Side for "Life at Conception" (YES)

It is general knowledge that all science says that bacteria, viruses, protists, fungi are living. All organisms in the scientific "kingdoms" of Monera, Protista, Fungi, Plantae, and Animalia are deemed alive by science when their cells are functioning, replicating, having the chemical processes, etc. Even one-celled organisms "Protists" are deemed alive and to an even greate extent, bacteria and viruses which aren't even one sustainable cell but microscopic parasites are still deemed alive. With all classifications of life being granted to cells and even pseudo-cells that have chemical processes occuring within them, energy being used, and reproduction of the cell happening: Why aren't multi-celled, human embryos and fetuses being deemed "alive"?

The whole purpose of "biology" is "bio = Life" and "logy= Study". Basically "biology" is the study of life so any biological groupings are groupings of living things.

Science fully gives those rights to lesser organisms and still human embryos (32 cells minimum) and fetuses (hundreds of thousands of cells) are not being given the status/title that science gives every other organism except unborn human babies.

Even unborn offspring of less organisms such as animals are considered "alive" by the scientific community before they are born.

Since this is occuring the opposition to "life at conception" must be saying that life is discretionary (see Argument:Is Life A Discretionary Status/Title). If this was not so then all zygotes, embryos, and fetuses would be granted the univeral status of living but this is opposed for reasons of abortion.